--- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RE:'So what is Derek's beef? He himself almost > always > resorts to totally unsubstantiated "belief" > statements > when he denounces something as "not worth the effort > of proof, or "can't be taken seriously" or "highly > dubious", etc. He has quite a lengthy roster of > similarly metaphysical phrases,' > > Not quite sure why they are 'metaphysical'..They are > simply comments > on the quality of the argumentation - which, in the > case in point, was > not good. Not good at all.
Not good? Why? You seem to assume that if you pronounce something deficient then it is deficient and case closed. My response is that since you never provide any logical reasoning as to why such and such is "not good at all" you must therefore rely on your belief that it is not good at all. Once again you emply a belief form of reasoning (intuition) but demand that others respond with a logical form of reasoning. Your methods are irrational. WC > > > Thus: It is perfectly reasonable to say that the > > existence of something depends on belief in its > > existence. And it is perfectly reasonable to say > that > > the existence of something depends on evidence > > independent of belief. > > > So the existence of little green men on a planet in > a galaxy far away > is proved if I just believe in said green men? > > (The second bit I do not follow at all.) > > DA > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:56 AM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Saul was consistent and I think correct in > responding > > to Derek's demands regarding proof of art by > saying > > it's "speculation." Indeed, any remark given as a > > summative judgment of art proof must be > speculative, > > honorific, a faith or belief proposition, a resort > to > > something spiritual, infeeable, an aura, and the > like. > > This is also where Cheerskep is right in his > > insistence that art is not "out there" but is > > something we proclaim but can't prove in a > materialst > > way. > > > > So what is Derek's beef? He himself almost always > > resorts to totally unsubstantiated "belief" > statements > > when he denounces something as "not worth the > effort > > of proof, or "can't be taken seriously" or "highly > > dubious", etc. He has quite a lengthy roster of > > similarly metaphysical phrases, not one of which > is > > less specualtive than Saul's offering that art is > > ultimately an expression of faith (in art) in the > same > > way that god belief is justified by the belief > itself > > and must remain speculative. Further, Derek has > > mentioned here that his "knowing" that such and > such > > is art cannot be explained even though he is > > convinced of the truth of his knowing. The only > way > > his knowing can be proved is through a > metaphysical > > form of belief; that is, again, believing makes it > so. > > Whereas in ordinary epistimological reasoning we > want > > to prove a thing independently of belief, in > > metaphysical "intuition" we admit that belief is > the > > proof. Saul is simply saying that art belongs to > the > > latter category and Derek reserves that category > for > > his denials but then switches lanes and demands > > others' propositions and speculations to be proven > by > > appeal to the former category. I say, "foul!" > > > > Thus: It is perfectly reasonable to say that the > > existence of something depends on belief in its > > existence. And it is perfectly reasonable to say > that > > the existence of something depends on evidence > > independent of belief. These two domains do not > > require each other's proofs. At least not yet -- > > despite some neurologial and philosophical > > propositions suggesting that belief is fundamental > to > > all cognition. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I am not surprised... > >> > >> DA > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Saul Ostrow > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > End of conversation > >> > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > >> > The Cleveland Institute of Art > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:58:18 +1000 > >> >> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Subject: Re: Presence > >> >> > >> >> Re: 'All fetishes have their object" > >> >> > >> >> So....? (Actually fetishes usually *are* > >> objects.) > >> >> > >> >> RE: 'as long as it remains moot - it remains > >> >> potentially true' > >> >> > >> >> It is moot whether little green men live on a > >> planet in another galaxy > >> >> far away, but I wouldn't want to waste my time > >> debating it. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> RE: '> So disprove it - its not enough for you > to > >> say that would > >> >> require an awful > >> >>> lot of argumentation before I would even > begin > >> to treat it seriously.' > >> >> > >> >> Yes it is. If I point out - as I did - that > there > >> is a number of very > >> >> questionable presuppositions involved, I have > >> effectively sidelined it > >> >> as a serious argument, at least until you can > >> deal with the > >> >> presuppostions. Why would I bother trying to > >> 'disprove' anything that > >> >> is, on the face of it, so very dubious anyway? > >> Theories of art have > >> >> to be more than mere wild speculation. > >> >> > >> >> DA > >> >> > >> >>
